Category: Previous Issues Articles

After a first date, some advise waiting at least three days before you make your second move. ECO wonders if the presidency is as nervous as a love-dovey teenager about their cover decision text, and has confused dating and negotiation practice… This seems the most plausible explanation as to why there is still no actual draft cover decision text yet. ECO doesn’t recommend the three-day rule for dating, or the cover decision. Since we have all booked our travel back, this adventure equals more the timeframe of a holiday daliance — so don’t play games and let’s get going. ECO wishes the Egyptian presidency courage to make the next move. And as you make that move, dear Presidency, you want to be among the cool kids on the block: smoking fossil fuels is so 20th century, so urgently include some language on the much-needed equitable phase-out of ALL fossil fuels. You can do it!

And if you are reading this and the text has come out, Presidency, please follow up faster next time.

ECO has found many problems in the Article 6 texts, and wants to flag four in particular: (1) the risk of absence of any consequences from the 6.2 review, (2) the open door to mark all information as confidential, (3) troubling CDM carryover loopholes, and (4) the unhelpful ‘other A6.4ERs’ terminology.

First, the Article 6 review must have some teeth. It should review the cooperative approaches (not just the consistency of information), and should not be guided by vague principles like non-intrusive, non-punitive, no ‘political judgments’, etc. The review must have consequences. Recurring and/or unaddressed inconsistencies cannot simply be ignored. No Internationally Transferred Mitigation Options (ITMO) transfers should be allowed until the review is completed and inconsistencies are satisfactorily addressed.

ECO was somewhat reassured to see that Parties want to mandate further work to define how confidential information should be reviewed. This is an opportunity to limit the current ‘free for all’ approach that allows Parties to designate any information as confidential. ECO welcomes the proposal that Parties should justify why they deem information to be confidential, but is concerned that some language remains too loose. The section on confidentiality throws the door wide-open for countries to designate any information as confidential and, given the uncertainty about what will be discussed in the future work programme, this is a risk that ECO advises against taking.
... Read more ...

ECO wants to start by congratulating Parties on recognizing the flaws in the recommendations on removals and sending it back to the Supervisory Body. And ECO was pleased to see additional guidance, including related to human rights, but ECO doesn’t think you have the formula quite right for what the Supervisory Body will need. So here is a recipe to help it have more robust guidance to protect human rights, including the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and ecosystem integrity.

Add:
A reference to the rights of Indigenous Peoples alongside human rights.
Make sure recommendations are in line with International Law
Make sure recommendations are in line with the latest science
Task them with operationalizing the Independent Grievance Mechanism as part of their work in 2023

Stir into the Draft Text paragraphs on Guidance. Proof read. Approve. Give to the Supervisory Body.

WTF? This is the question that ECO has been asking for the past 50 years since it was born – where is the finance! While it started with asks for more development aid, these days it’s about financing efforts of vulnerable countries on mitigation and adaptation. And if you think it will get better, tell us – where is the US$100 billion that was committed in Copenhagen 2009 and Cancun 2010?

Guess what the latest excuse for this failure is? Rising inflation resulting from Russian aggression. Oh, please! Do you remember your past excuses? That you had budgeted already; or there are no bankable projects; or there is corruption; lack of governance, etc. But the honest and brutal truth is that they just do not want to collectively pay. At best, they propose to ‘rob from Peter to pay Paul’. Who said this money has to come from existing taxes or existing budgets from the rich nations?

ECO is not as shy as our finance ministers. And because ECO is also generous, here are our 4 novel finance options that the ministers can think about as they leave the COP in the next few days.

First, tax the super profits of the ~50 largest multilateral coal, oil, and gas companies.
... Read more ...

ECO is happy to share this part of our publication with the Indigenous Peoples Caucus(IPO) to help amplify their voice. This article reflects the views of the IPO.

Hózhó Nahasdlii. Hózhó Nahasdlii. Hózhó Nahasdlii. Hózhó Nahasdlii.
These words are often the end of Diné (Navajo) prayers with a loose English translation to “all is beautiful again”. This definition of beauty is one of balance, harmony, spirit, and hope. In the fight for climate justice, hózhó nahasdlii is not just a destination. It’s a map for how we get there.

These climate negotiations are spiritually and physically taxing and always fall drastically short, painting a picture of hopelessness. However, we know hope is rooted in those people and communities outside of this venue who understand that we need (re)connection to our land and our teachings. As we work towards harmony and beauty, we must remember that it is okay to hold both hope and frustration in our bodies and spirit. It’s okay to make time for both pain and joy with our international relatives! Dance together. Cry together. Sing together. Hold each other. We are hope. We are medicine.

Similarly, the work of our climate justice movement needs balance as well. While some are focused on negotiating every word and bracket of text, others are here to bring attention to the injustices and crises of their communities through organizing nonviolent direct actions.
... Read more ...

ECO’s worried that sleep-deprived Parties are mixing up their cappuccinos and their carbon, thinking that it’s possible to decarbonize oil and gas like we decaffeinate coffee. Wake up, wake up, wake up!

There’s no such thing as carbon-free or low-carbon fossil fuels.

We cannot decarbonize oil, gas, and coal. We need to decarbonize the economy, by ending reliance on fossil fuels.

Fossil fuel producers are falling over themselves to sell their products as the cleanest dirty energy around. ECO’s not buying it. Nor are many others in this venue.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) cannot make gas green, oil clean, or coal climate-safe. CCS is not a climate solution – so we should not be baking it into our climate plans. Ample evidence demonstrates that CCS is unnecessary for the rapid emission cuts we need, unproven at scale, and unjust for communities on the frontlines of fossil fuel extraction and the buildout of carbon pipelines and CCS infrastructure. It’s no surprise that the most recent IPCC report ranked carbon capture as one of the costliest and least effective mitigation options for reducing emissions by 2030—the most critical period for avoiding further catastrophic harm.

Of course, oil and gas companies know all this.
... Read more ...

Parties and friends, did you really think ECO would let you forget that today is Biodiversity Day here at COP27? Today is about far more than minimizing the climate impacts on ecosystems (although we hope that massive species extinction might worry you, just a little bit). We are here to remind you that there is currently no pathway to 1.5°C without halting and reversing biodiversity loss NOW. We need Parties and all actors, following the example of the stewardship of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, to keep protecting nature in its amazing complexity to help us fight climate change. Sadly, some of you prefer to ignore that.

Science and traditional knowledge show us that nature is not just a nice “add-on” but essential in mitigating, helping adapt to, and preventing loss and damage from the climate crisis. Do you recognize these pillars? Of course, you do. They’ve been central to your conversations over the past 10 days, as well as the 7 years since the adoption of the Paris Agreement. Your Paris text, and your COP decisions (most recently in Glasgow), refer repeatedly to the importance of biodiversity, forests, the ocean and ecosystems in climate action. You say publicly that you are committed to these texts, but actions speak louder than words.
... Read more ...

Some parties seem confused about the concept of Just Transition, so ECO thought it would give them a little history lesson, in collaboration with our friends at TUNGO. In 2015 the term ‘just transition’ landed in the Paris Agreement. Firmly fixed in the preamble, Parties agreed to ‘take into account the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities.’ This was a great win for trade unions representing workers worldwide who are affected by both the effects of climate policies as well as climate change impacts themselves.

The term ‘just transition’ was coined by labour and environmental activist Tony Mazzochi in the 1970s and has been built upon by the labour movement and trade unions ever since. The core has always been about securing workers’ rights and livelihoods and giving them a say in their changing future due to a transitioning economy.

Have Parties forgotten that after the Paris Agreement, the ILO defined the meaning of Just Transition more precisely in its ‘Just Transition Guidelines’, specifying that social dialogue (involving government, labour and employers), decent work, labour rights and social protection are key elements? With this, the ILO provided a solid framework for Parties to build just transition into further agreements and the implementation of the Paris Agreement.
... Read more ...

It’s the MWP choir and ECO is concerned that Parties are not singing in tune. Your time for rehearsal is almost over. ECO is curious to ask Parties — what is the outcome you want from the MWP? Be honest, do you want it to be a talk shop? It didn’t seem so during the High-Level Ministerial Roundtable on pre-2030 ambition when many Ministers sang to the pitch of keeping 1.5°C alive. You spoke about urgency and the need for means of implementation. We also heard about an annual report to be presented to Ministers which would then be presented to the CMA. This was music to our ears! In order to deliver the necessary reduction, the process must; lead to recommendations for implementation, make available incentives, and report on its achieved reductions. In the end, the success of the MWP must be visible on the annual synthesis report you agreed to in Glasgow (CMA para 30)! This political signal will enable you to rise up to the ambition we need for a climate safe world for all. So, what is stopping you?

We heard from Japan, Chile, Bangladesh, Argentina, the EU, UK, Bolivia, and more…that the MWP can lead to incentives and opportunities to create ambition.
... Read more ...

Three days away from the scheduled end of COP27, the cover decision that should send a strong signal to guide implementation is still out of sight. ECO has been looking for actual textual proposals but has only found a list of bullet points so far.

It was encouraging, though, to hear many Parties urge that the 1.5°C limit should be enshrined in the cover decision. Next is to convert this goal into what this means for action and decision language. ECO has your back: “to revisit and strengthen NDCs with a timeframe up to 2030, including through incorporating new and strengthened sectoral and non-carbon dioxide targets or actions, to align with 1.5°C by at least 43% aggregate reductions by 2030 over 2019 levels to be in line with equity.“

And while that list of topics was quite long, some absolutely critical elements were notably absent or pretty incomplete. So, here are ECO’s top three suggestions to include (more clearly):

First, establish a Loss and Damage finance facility at this COP.
Second, agree on a roadmap for doubling adaptation finance by 2025 including timebound tracking, ensuring $100bn a year in climate finance on average over 2020-2025 as committed to in 2009/2015.

Third, initiate financial system transformation.
... Read more ...